Gentle readers, today I had a Crap E-mail From A Dude exchange that just cries out to be shared. When I forwarded it to PhDork and Pilgrim Soul–who I saw right after my first date with this dude–the Dork asked, “Did someone throw a switch on the DoucheSignal?”

The first date with Mr. Douche was odd. He’s good looking, has an interesting job, is intelligent and passionate about the world. So far so good. But he tended to rant, especially about hot button topics like politics. That didn’t turn me on; I don’t like to argue in general and I really don’t like to argue on a first date. I got tired of it, and let him know it, which I think surprised him. “Are you always this intense?” he asked. I gave him the side-eye and said, “Only when provoked.” He began apologizing and was pretty contrite for the rest of the date.

I was on the fence if I wanted to go out with him again. But he e-mailed today:

Becky, I think we should probably hang again at some point. We didn’t take the arguing personally– which is probably a good thing. And I don’t think being out with you would feel like a “date” or any other construct, which jigs with my life outlook — whatever that may or may not be. Ha.

Let me know if these words make any logical sense to you.

Huh? I just had to forward this for a second and third opinion from the Harpies. Picture their remarks as an episode of “Mystery Science Theater.”

Pilgrim Soul: Boy is he weird.

PhDork:I’m coming down with something, so maybe my reading skills are compromised, but it does sound like he’s willing to do you a solid and see you again, since 1) you held your own intellectually, without gettin’ all bitchy or whatever, and 2) you probably will put out without entangling him in a relationship. ”Ha.”

I e-mailed Mr. Douche back and said:

Hmmm…What does that third sentence mean? I’ve read it a couple times and still don’t quite get it. Can you clarify?

Rather than clarifying, it got even weirder. And douchier:

Well, Becky, you are curious about my life outlook and cannot glean
it from a sentence. Man, I would hope that would be the case.
Nonetheless… I don’t really get “dates” — or other forms of self
and mutual destruction. I do get chilling with people from time to
time with zero downsides, particularly if there is something to talk
about.

Am I still being cryptic? I’m definitely not trying to be.

Not cryptic…just bizarro. Is this supposed to make me want to go out with him again? He was waving red flags like it’s May Day in Tiananmen Square. That comment pretty much finished it for me, and for the other Harpies:

Pilgrim Soul:I am of that small minority that believes that only a small number of people can pull off the use of the word “chilling” unironically. He is not one of them.

PhDork:He thinks he’s been all casual and cool: “I don’t like to label things, baybee, let’s just chill together, so I can insult you in vague terms with plausible deniability.” I think he’s trying to “neg” you. In which case, you know what to do.

Yes, I did:

No, [Mr. Douche] I wasn’t “curious about your life outlook” and trying to glean it from that one sentence. It was a strangely worded e-mail and I was just asking you to explain it.

But I think you told me all I need to know with: “Dates are “a form of self and mutual destruction.”

I think I’d rather not go on a second date with you, thanks.

When the neg failed, he decided to try honey instead of vinegar:

I meant that totally tongue in cheek. My point was that I think we would really, really like each other.

I didn’t respond right away to the last-ditch attempt to make nice, so he decided to oh-so-casually reject me.

My loss. Do take care.

Bye now. Ya weirdo.

I guess he was hoping that it would have the desired negging response: I’d rush to try to change his mind. Won’t happen.

Congratulations! You spotted a loser, confirmed he was a loser, and moved away quickly. This is a valuable skill I wish I had when I was, let’s see — 17, 22, 25, 28, 30 — oh, hell, pretty much until I met my husband, and that was a happy accident. The last guy I went out with before I met my husband wrote me a CEFAD with a similar refrain, just a much wordier. He actually said I should have NO EXPECTATIONS (and yes, he wrote that in all-caps).
But he got his karmic comeuppance. Not only did he have to witness my husband and I meet and fall for each other (we were all at the same party). He is single to this day. If your Mr. Douche isn’t careful, he will face a similar fate.

“I don’t really get “dates” — or other forms of self
and mutual destruction.”

I love it when people say shit like this because the clear implication is “if you think a date is a worthwhile way to spend time, you are prosaic, provincial, and generally beneath me”.

I also enjoy the implication of: “My point was that I think we would really, really like each other.” Read: “I think I would really, really like [to bone] you and it hasn’t occurred to me to care about your feelings on the subject”.

I agree with everyone else — the first email made little sense and according to the second email he doesn’t “really get” dates. Therefore, he probably shouldn’t “date” until he grows up. Congratulations on realizing this about him before wasting your time on a second date!

This is so interesting!! I think I need a personal dude coach/translator cuz I am so immune to weirdos, I would have gone out with him again. I am so clueless about men, I am honestly fascinated with their motivations and so often I say “well it will make a good story” and go on ahead. Am I a freak magnet?!

OMG. This is awesome. The only thing that would make this better for me is if he would somehow stumble upon this site and read our comments. MWUAHHAHA. Especially love the dudebro-ish use of “chilling.” How old is this person? I swear this is why I have all but given up on men. I run into this shit all.the.time.

Oh, good job on spotting a douche before he gets a chance to throw off the pH balance of your life.

I interpret that first email as that he’s decided you’re not “girlfriend material” – he’s probably afraid you’ll accidentally win an argument with him in front of one of his bros, even as you’re trying not to argue – but he’s open to a casual, casual, easy thing, since he’s so hot and the direction of your possible relationship is totally his to make.

@thelady: I don’t think you’re weird at all. You sound like all of my girlfriends when I was single. I used to think there was something wrong with me that I was so “picky.” Maybe you’ve been lucky in love so far!

I am kinda vaguely attracted to you but want to seem objective rather than eager. Also I get to make all the decisions for both of us.

We didn’t take the arguing personally– which is probably a good thing.

I have graciously forgiven you for insubordinately talking back to me. This is a lucky escape for you, because if you ever try it again I will make you wish you were dead. In the meantime, I will use the royal we because I feel entitled to speak for both of us.

And I don’t think being out with you would feel like a “date” or any other construct, which jigs with my life outlook — whatever that may or may not be. Ha.

But this will not mean we’re dating. Don’t expect to pin me down on anything, ever; I am the most uncommitted man you will ever meet.

Let me know if these words make any logical sense to you.

So, did the flimflam work? Do I seem glamorously unattainable yet infinitely cool and desirable?

I find his use of emoticons a little creepy. Like he’s trying really really hard for a friendly, conversational tone while pretending he doesn’t care at all what you think of him–it’s a little jarring.

But a good story! Being the evil person that I am, I probably would have played along a bit longer to get more material to post here.

Bottom line: He’s cheap. Or broke. Maybe both. Dudes that claim to not understand the value in dating (read: spending money on a chick without a guaranteed “return on their investment”) tend to be selfish assholes.

And he’s lazy. “Chilling” is code for “::grunt:: come over, I feed you cereal, we watch cable, make sexy times on couch.” These guys are also lazy and therefore lousy lays (you know the type: on his back with his hands triumphantly behind his head and a smirk on his face that begs to be smacked silly).

That first email made NO sense whatsoever. I love how when you wrote back like, “what are you talking about?” He was all, “thank you for enquiring about my personal philosophy on life!” Like, uh no, you were asking if he could put his thoughts down in a form of the english language that actually made coherent sense.

He should have ignored all the advice in “How to Snag a Woman With a Word Salad of Faux Sentiments Dressed With Axe Vinaigrette (because all the skinny ladies worth dating like salad)” by Tukker Maximus-Asshat.

He should have read “Dudes, We Can Smell The Douche From A Mile Away” by Womanhood.

@ ceejeemcbeegee or possibly British. As a nation we don’t do dates at all really, coming more from the ‘lets all hang out at a bar getting drunk with our mates and then attempt to casually (or in reality somewhat obviously) drag the fancied one back to ours without anyone noticing for drunken sex’ school of relationships.

While i wouldn’t ever have written an email like that, I will also confess that I have been on precisely one date in my life, it was when I first moved to New York and the man i went on it with irritated me so much that I got up and left half way through, right after he’d asked me how much I hoped to earn one day having already told me about his own large salary in tedious detail. As I told him at the time it felt more like a job interview than an interesting way of spending an evening.

Haha, oh jeez, he sounds like an old roommate of mine. He would always send me these emails hinting that I should, say, keep the kitchen cleaner — and they would be written in this sad attempt at a clever-cool-witty voice. He’d open with “Hey girl,” then make some snide remark like “I’ve been finding a lot of stuff caked to the countertops lately. It’s kinda gross, you know?”, and then cover his ass with something like “But then again, maybe I’m just imagining things and everything’s fine. Ciao, [douchemate]”

Then, I’d email him back with something to the effect that I didn’t think there was anything wrong with my cleanliness and maybe we should get together with the third roommate and discuss specific kitchen-cleaning duties, and he would go, “Oh ho ho, look who’s taking everything too personally!”

He clearly had some kind of standards, but he never wanted to specifically spell them out — like Becky’s date, he liked to reserve his right to have things both ways and never take a chance of being wrong.

Alyssa:
Yeah, I noticed that. I tend to get suspicious when people start talking about logic. I’ve noticed that men often do it when trying to win an argument with women — I suspect they think women (the emotional sex) will be intimidated by the prospect of arguing on “logical” grounds (the purview of the rational sex).

Starting with a few simple axioms is a great idea when trying to prove a math theorem, but human society is complicated. Nobody, not even professional mathematicians and scientists (I know many and aspire to be one), can even hope to construct reasons for all their actions from some set of “first principles”. Instead, they resort to ideas like common sense, empathy, and foresight. You could think of these things as “theorems” that have been developed collectively from the axioms of planet earth by the human race over millenia. Things get even more complicated, though, since different people have slightly differing versions of these theorems.

Men I’ve argued with sometimes try to use “being logical” as an excuse to narrow the terms of the debate so drastically as to exclude conclusions that are obvious under the algebras of empathy and common sense. This tactic tends to get used in debates about why women don’t leave abusive relationships, why women are underrepresented in science in the absence of laws specifically forbidding them from entering the field, etc.

Actual scientists, by the way, are not necessarily more likely than others to try the logic snob racket. It seems to be a favorite of Objectivist types.

@j-bird & Becky – Also fun to watch out for is the phenomenon where the guy who brings up “logic” as his trump card normally doesn’t know what it means and is just relying on personal experience or that really cool conversational tactic of ignoring everything the other person says. Logic!